The fact that Edwards was a geocentrist as late as 1696 is not insignificant. Overwhelming evidence for heliocentrism was available prior to the advent of either Newtonian mechanics or the evidence from the aberration of starlight. It consisted in the vastly superior predictive success of Kepler’s laws over both the geocentric Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system that employed circular orbits. As soon as the motions of the planets could be predicted as accurately as Kepler’s hypothesis predicted them, resistance to heliocentrism became irrational, despite the fact that strict logic does not rule out either of the preceding competitors. (It would be very helpful here to have a fully satisfying account of rationality that would support such claims, but we lack anything like that, so the best I can do is make the claim and hope that others will recognize it as highly plausible.)
Of course, one must be aware of the available evidence before one can be irrational for resisting it, and many people in 1696 we were simply unaware of it. I assume Edwards was aware of it though, given his background. If not, then so much the better the for Edwards. But if so, then Edwards appears to be a victim of his own enthusiasm, which led him to overstate his case when there was evidence enough to have prevented that. Ted, I’m also assuming that Boyle called heliocentrism a “hypothesis” out of social politeness, and not because of any significant doubts on his part that remained after he became aware of Kepler. If that’s not right, I would be interested in hearing why.
All this points to a general lesson, which I take it was part of Dennis’s point. If one’s apologetic argument consists of evidence that even could be overturned at a later date by subsequent scientific inquiry, then at best one should hold it very loosely. And such arguments (let’s call them “gappy” arguments because their only dialectical force derives from exploiting gaps in the present state of scientific knowledge) should never be one’s only basis for theological or theistic beliefs. Edwards seems to have put too much stock in his gappy argument, though I assume (and hope) that he had other, non-gappy, arguments. The general lesson is directly applicable to the dependence of ID on “irreducible complexity.” Gappy arguments do not consititute a “God-of-the-gaps” theology if they are offered in a tentative and revisable way, and do not stand alone as the basis of one’s faith, but there seems to be a great temptation to abuse them.
Yes, there is Merv. Which I guess is my point. Not that I think the two example to hand would be other than a straw man: the sun standing still stands describes as a miracle within what is presented an historical account. The Vision of dry bones is… a vision, and though I may be mistaken I’d be surprised if anybody has ever interpreted it otherwise.
There would be no point in disputing with Lou about the violability of physical laws if we had no purported evidence of miracles. And as Christians we’re prone to place greater credance in biblical miracles than in reports from distant lands (or even the local revival meeting).
But if we accept them as factual (or even some of them) then we’re accepting them as evidence against Lou’s view of science, that exceptions to law don’t happen. So the question is, how must the Christian’s science differ from the atheist’s to accommodate miracles?
But not only miracles - the harder question to me is always that of special providence. Do we regularly pray the Lord’s Prayer, and if so, how do we understand “Give us this day our bread for the morrow”, especially if we’re in dire need? Unless we believe that God is absolutely prodigal with his miracles, how does our scientific understanding of the universe deal with an immanently providing God?
We would think so, wouldn’t we! I met a lady once, who when it was suggested that the parable stories didn’t literally happen, was horrified at the suggestion. (So much for my trying to find any common territory with her, when my extreme example from the “everybody’s gotta agree with this” bag is met with an abrupt “get behind me you doubting sinner!” – she didn’t really say that to me, but it is fun to imagine she might have). I would lay odds that she feels the same way about everything else in the Bible too — from dry bones to the apocalyptic predictions of Revelation (which, after all, were part of a “mere” vision as well, right?) You and all of us here can accuse her of horrible exegesis or inattentiveness to what the bible really says. But she could come full-throttle right back and accuse us all of succumbing to Hume’s influence as we follow him down his highway to perdition. Why else would we be doubting that God really did and could do fantastic things? If I am right about her example, then we all here are in the same (uncomfortable?) boat of being asked to produce all our brilliant (and no doubt quite valid!) rationalizations for why Scriptures don’t really claim all these things to be 20th century-style historicity. I would also lay odds that she isn’t alone (this is the U.S. after all).
For some, from 17th century anti-Copernicans to their pious contemporaries, it is just “ever so clear” what Scriptures teach. That their pious conviction in this can turn out to be ever-so-clearly wrong in at least some of these matters should give us reflective pause.
Amen to all you say here. One thing that seems to emerge from such an example is that slam-dunk principles on epistemology are comforting, but in the end unsatisfactory. One can say the Bible shouldn’t speak to science on principle, but then you have to reach a judgement on whether the resurrection is irrelevant too.
You can say that there wasn’t an actual prodigal son, but have to make a judgement on whether the genre of the Adam narrative is entirely divorced from history - or come to that, what is clearly an historical narrative in the Joshua story.
The fact is that your lady is an extreme example of a continuum in which one simply has to execute judgement on matters of interpretation, and some judgements are better than others not so much on principle, but because they are wiser.
One additional comment, if I may. Anyone who engages in science/religion debates has to have some notion of how strong one’s evidence must be before it becomes irrational to resist it. But judgments of rationality are notorious for being fraught with vagueness and imprecision. And yet we have no choice but to make them, and we do have some clear examples to work with. It would be wonderful if we had a reliable algorithmic procedure that could take all our experience and indubitable propositions as inputs, and produce as an output a conclusion about the rationality of some proposition given the input evidence. But that is a pipe dream. We have to learn to proceed without it, and to just put up with all the vagueness and imprecision.
Tom Rogers
I am all for simplicity, clarity, and logic.
Just returning to the original theme of “biological information and intelligent design”: our research and development work at RealityRandD.com has come up with a proposal for a new Godly science we are calling Atomic Biology. It goes a step deeper than molecular biology down to where the real action of building cells with atoms occurs. Our hypothesis is that Intelligent Design is only a part of the super-intelligent work of building living cells and entities. To build each cell, the right numbers of the right atoms have to be found in available sources, sorted from the wrong ones, selected, precisely placed and fastened in their proper part of their particular cell, have the breath-of-life added to make these inanimate atoms functional, have the DNA, RNA, etc. precisely programmed, and then have the cell placed, fastened, and hooked up in its proper part of the entity being constructed by the builder. It doesn’t happen by magic, does it. Then the entity has to be sustained and maintained, all phases of which require supernatural intelligence, speed, dexterity, and reliable care.
Oh, what an awesome God we serve.
Yes, awesome indeed! I have just one question. If in, say, 200 years there is a plausible naturalistic explanation available for all of the things you cite here (I didn’t say overwhelming, just plausible), then would you feel pressured to withdraw or mute your praise? I want to say there should be no such pressure on Christians, ever, and that God may be praised without reservation even if it should turn out that the story of natural history can be told in a thoroughly naturalistic way. And as Jon Garvey was suggesting above (I think), the rationality of believing the biblical miracles would remain unaffected in such a case.
Hi John:
Our research on the subject of “How does God build things” started as a curiosity in 1987 when this late- blooming believer finally saw the light (that’s me). Some years later I pieced together some fascinating info about our red blood cells. Pallister stated that a 70 kg male has about 2.3 million new rbc’s per second produced for him; then I found Tortora who states that every rbc contains about 280 million molecules of hemoglobin; then I found that Max Perutz claims that each molecule of hemoglobin contains about 10,000 of the right atoms. I verified the numbers with other research and did the math. The number is about 6400 Quadrillion right atoms per second that have to be found in our digestive system, selected and precisely assembled into new rbc’s to replace the worn-out ones. We get a whole new batch within about 120 days. I just cannot imagine this ever being performed by an unguided process. It involves such a huge amount of super-intelligent, reliable, careful physical work. Does this seem like reasonable thought to you?
Yes, it’s reasonable to think these processes are guided, though I must leave it to Dennis and other experts to comment on the specifics you cite here. But if I’m understanding you correctly, you need more than a simple acknowledgement that it is reasonable to think these processes are guided. You need to claim that it is unreasonable to think that future inquiry will ever result in a reasonable and unguided way of understanding them. And that’s the claim that I’m saying can be dangerous, and should be held very loosely. The general lesson is that Christians should not hang their theological hats on claims about the way science will go in the future. Edwards (from Dennis’s post) and the 17th-century anti-Copernicans are classic examples, but ID is in danger of making the same mistake. Belief in God’s creative agency is reasonable, even in the presence of a fully naturalistic explanation for all natural phenomena. We don’t need to think that science must develop in a certain way.
“We don’t need to think that science must develop in a certain way” – J.T. Mullen
I totally agree with this statement, John. It relates to the statement that “Science must go where the evidence leads”. Then having done that, choose the Best Explanation based upon today’s evidence.
We believe Atomic Biology may provide the Best Explanation. You could say we are prejudiced but that in itself does not make the belief wrong.
We are gathering friendships and scholarly support for the fair investigation of this proposed new branch of Godly science.
Open minded scientists are certainly welcome.
Well, Beaglelady. I am certainly not God, but I know that our governments make rules that come with penalties, and that God does also. Even when we do not always understand the reason for our difficulties, we can rely on His Word that He can use all circumstances for a good purpose for those that love Him. My experience is that I advanced most, personally, through great difficulties.
If you have a disorder, I have just said a little prayer for God to reveal His good purpose to you, if you do love Him. We know that even the great Apostle Paul had a “thorn in his side” that God left there for a purpose. Yours may be a penalty or it may be a teaching tool.
Part of my problems were brought on by my pride.
Your comment about having no reason to be penalized for anything is a bit of a red flag, wouldn’t you say? (“For all of us have sinned and fall short…”). Just saying…
I don’t know, Beaglelady. You would know far better than I.
Every good parent disciplines their children, but as I mentioned, this may just be a teaching tool. My final suggestion is to wait and watch closely for the good purpose. It always shows up eventually for me. Maybe He just wants more of your attention. He doesn’t mind questions but He dislikes being ignored, especially when He works so hard for us. This is a facet of our Atomic Biology project.
Perhaps He just wanted us to have this discussion to help bring us closer to Him.
Nice corresponding with you.
Tom
I share your wonder at the way biological systems work. And I agree that just as the “Heavens proclaim the glory of God” so do all living cells. But we need to be careful about ascribing specific aspects of biological function to God guided processes. I dont know if you are saying that all biological processes are too complex and too amazing to be explained by natural processes, but if you are, then as John Mullen said, it would be a mistake. We know an awful lot of the detailed mechanisms by which biology works. That includes your example of red blood cell genesis and hemoglobin synthesis, and pretty much all of physiology. I suggest that it would be very beneficial for your project to pick up a basic molecular biology textbook and study it. You will be inspired and refreshed in your faith in the wonders of God’s works, but you will also be able to avoid trying to fill gaps of our real knowledge that are actually not there. Such study should point you in the right direction to apply your ideas of God’s design in the right place. Peace.